[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [大般涅槃經疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767) › 4.5 # 大般涅槃經疏 4.5 大般涅槃經疏 4.5 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [4.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.4.5) 三、純陀設難。文為二：初總非，「不然」後別作難。冶城作四難、開善作五難，名目不同（云云）。今明五難：一有智斷無智斷、二有聖號無聖號、三具四身三身、四具度眼不具度眼、五得五果不得五果（云云）。初一難具論自他，後四難唯論於自。此難本明受者福他，初既備舉後不煩文，是故略之。然此五難芰角難解。何者？至理寂滅無大無小；若垂迹化物，緣有利鈍、應有勝劣，小緣所見初後俱劣、大緣所見初後俱勝。若始坐樹下受牧女乳麋食，此食已十力充滿，此小緣劣見。若始坐華臺，眷屬菩薩悉坐華葉，十方諸佛放眉間光入華臺頂，諸佛眷屬放眉間光入華葉頂，華臺菩薩三昧受職成於報佛，華葉菩薩成於應佛，此大緣見勝。當知牧女與諸佛不同，乳麋與光明永異，此即大小二佛最初受施。若見佛自行乞食，到純陀舍食檀耳羹，中夜入滅輿向雙林以火焚身，此小緣劣見。若見純陀悲感，但獻八斛四斗不思議供充飽一切，見十方佛遣大弟子鉢盛香飯奉佛涅槃，大緣見勝。當知乞食與送食不同，香飯與檀耳永異，大小二佛最後受施其相若此。例推智斷，乃至五果亦應各異。純陀芰角將大緣之後並小緣之初構差別之難，佛約大緣所見初後無差以答，則涇渭皎然、初後不二。今更引經而分別之。《勝天王》中，初坐樹下有四種相：或見坐祥草、或見坐天衣、或見坐七寶、或見坐虛空。《像法決疑經》，佛入涅槃亦四種相：或見拘尸土石樹林、或見是七寶莊嚴、或見是三世諸佛菩薩所游居處、或見是真如實相純佛境界。前後既現四相不同，例推智斷，乃至五果亦應各異。今更對教主而略說之。若三藏佛，初受乳麋未有智斷，不能化他令得智斷；凡法未離不得聖號，苦行體羸外須雜食；無漏未發內有煩惱，果縛尚在；是後邊身必歸磨滅，是無常身。雖行事檀未得理度，檀不具足。乃至般若亦復如是。父母之身但是肉眼，未有通明，故無四眼。既受食已，自得五益能五益他。觀純陀言，專引三藏佛初成為難。若通教佛，菩薩道時已斷正使，無漏現前自得智斷，亦令他得；已捨凡法入聖人位；誓願扶習，現坐道場示受食身，無復四住但有習氣，名無常身後邊之身，非是正使無常之身。後邊之身已具亡三，檀波羅蜜乃至般若，已得四眼未得佛眼，示消揣食福利於他令得五果。純陀所難都未涉此。若別圓佛，初受施時如佛所答，我成佛來無量阿僧祇劫，久具智斷令他智斷，乃至久已不食不消，無五事果，示現初成初受、後成後受。豈可以劣見之初難勝見之後？初後二果等無差別，其義明矣。 > Third, Cunda sets forth objections. The text has two parts: first, a general rejection; after "It is not so," he raises the objections individually. \[Master of\] Yěchéng made four objections, and Kāishàn made five objections, their headings being different, and so forth. Now I clarify five objections: 1. having wisdom and eradication vs. lacking wisdom and eradication; 2. having the noble title vs. lacking the noble title; 3. possessing the four bodies vs. the three bodies; 4. possessing the eyes of crossing over vs. lacking the eyes of crossing over; 5. attaining the five fruits vs. not attaining the five fruits, and so forth. The first objection comprehensively discusses both self and other; the latter four objections discuss only the self. These objections originally clarify the beneficiary's benefiting others; since the first fully raises both, the subsequent ones do not burden the text, and so they are abridged. However, these five objections cross horns and are difficult to resolve. Why? The ultimate principle is quiescent, without great or small; yet if traces are manifested to transform beings, conditions may be sharp or dull, and responses may be superior or inferior. What is seen by those of lesser capacity is inferior in both the beginning and the end; what is seen by those of greater capacity is superior in both the beginning and the end. If, when first sitting beneath the tree, he received the milk-rice meal from the cowherd woman, and after this meal was filled with the ten powers, this is the inferior view of those of lesser capacity. If, when first sitting upon the lotus pedestal, his retinue of bodhisattvas all sat on the lotus petals, and the buddhas of the ten directions emitted light from between their eyebrows that entered the crown of the lotus pedestal, while the retinues of the buddhas emitted light from between their eyebrows that entered the crowns of the lotus petals, and the bodhisattva on the lotus pedestal received the office through samādhi and became the retribution buddha, while the bodhisattvas on the lotus petals became the response buddhas, this is the superior view of those of greater capacity. One should know that the cowherd woman and the buddhas are not the same, and milk-rice and radiant light are perpetually distinct; this is the initial receipt of offerings by the two buddhas, the small and the great. If one sees the Buddha begging for food by himself, arriving at Cunda's house and eating the mushroom soup, entering extinction at midnight, being carried toward the Twin Trees, and having his body burned with fire, this is the inferior view of those of lesser capacity. If one sees Cunda moved by grief and offering only an inconceivable gift of eight hu and four dou that fully sates everyone, and one sees the buddhas of the ten directions sending their great disciples with bowls filled with fragrant rice to present to the Buddha at his nirvāṇa, this is the superior view of those of greater capacity. One should know that begging for food and having food delivered are not the same, and fragrant rice and mushrooms are perpetually distinct; the marks of the final receipt of offerings by the two buddhas, the small and the great, are like this. By analogical deduction, wisdom and eradication, down to the five fruits, should also each be distinct. Cunda crosses horns by setting the end of the greater capacity alongside the beginning of the lesser capacity to construct an objection of disparity; the Buddha, relying on what is seen by the greater capacity wherein the beginning and the end are without disparity, answers, so that the Jing and Wei rivers are distinct, and the beginning and the end are non-dual. Now I shall further cite sūtras to differentiate this. In the Superior King \[of the Heavens\] Sūtra, when he first sat beneath the tree, there were four marks: some saw him sitting on auspicious grass, some saw him sitting on celestial robes, some saw him sitting on the seven jewels, and some saw him sitting in empty space. In the Sūtra on Resolving Doubts in the Semblance Dharma, the Buddha's entry into nirvāṇa also has four marks: some saw the soil, stones, and forest grove of Kuśinagara; some saw it adorned with the seven jewels; some saw it as the dwelling place traversed by the buddhas and bodhisattvas of the three times; and some saw it as true suchness, dharmatā, the pure realm of buddhas. Since earlier and later there appeared four different marks, by analogical deduction, wisdom and eradication, down to the five fruits, should also each be distinct. Now I shall further explain this briefly in relation to the masters of the teachings. In the case of the Buddha of the Tripiṭaka \[teaching\], when he first received the milk-rice, he did not yet possess wisdom and eradication and could not transform others to cause them to attain wisdom and eradication; having not yet departed from the mundane condition, he did not obtain the noble title; his body being emaciated from ascetic practices, he externally required coarse food; unoutflowing \[wisdom\] not having arisen, internally there were afflictions, and the binding of retribution still remained; this was his final body, bound to return to destruction, an impermanent body. Although practicing the dāna of phenomena, he had not yet attained the crossing over of principle, and his dāna was not fully complete. The same applies down to prajñā. The body from his parents was merely the physical eye, not yet having superknowledges and clarities, and thus he lacked the four eyes. After receiving the meal, he obtained the five benefits for himself and was able to confer the five benefits on others. Observing Cunda's words, he exclusively cites the initial attainment of the Tripiṭaka Buddha to make his objection. In the case of the Buddha of the Shared Teaching, when on the bodhisattva path, he had already severed the principal afflictions; unoutflowing \[wisdom\] appearing before him, he personally attained wisdom and eradication and also caused others to attain them; having already abandoned mundane conditions, he entered the stage of the noble ones; through the habit-energy sustained by vows, he appeared sitting in the place of awakening and manifested a body that received food; having no more four abodes, he possessed only habit-energy, which is called an impermanent body and a final body, not an impermanent body of principal afflictions. This final body has already completely eliminated the three \[aspects of giver, recipient, and gift\]; from dānapāramitā down to prajñā, he had already attained the four eyes though not yet the buddha eye; he manifested the digestion of solid food to benefit others and cause them to attain the five fruits. What Cunda objects to does not touch upon this at all. In the case of the Buddha of the Distinct and Perfect \[teachings\], when he first received the offering, it was as the Buddha replied: "Since I became a buddha, immeasurable asaṃkhyeya kalpas have passed; I have long possessed wisdom and eradication and caused others to have wisdom and eradication," down to having long since neither eaten nor digested, and being without the fruits of the five matters, merely manifesting the initial attainment and initial receipt, the final attainment and final receipt. How could one use the beginning of the inferior view to object to the end of the superior view? That the two fruits of the beginning and the end are equal without distinction—this meaning is clear. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 4.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.4.4) - [Next: 4.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.4.6) - [Up: 4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.4) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767~en-mt.4.5) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.4.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.4.5) · Pramāṇa